Skip to content
Menu

Case studies

Filter by Industry
Industry
Filter by Audience
Audience
Filter by Author
Author
Filter by Hazard type
Hazard type
Filter by Topic
Topic
Selected filters

Showing 13-24 of 38 results with 2 filters

Choose a sort order
  • Holy Cross Laundry

    Holy Cross Laundry has improved their stay at work and their claim durations have decreased following their participation in the IPaM program.

  • Decision explores duty of care and psychiatric injury

    Palmer & Ors v State of Queensland 27 March 2015. This judgement analyses what employee actions can be classified as being within the course of employment and shows that, if an internal investigation process is followed by an employer, there is no special duty of care owed to minimise the risk of psychiatric injury to employees being investigated.

  • Workplace safety is no joke

    A reminder that not all practical jokes have a funny outcome and how injuries can present themselves in the years following the incident.

  • Mandatory participation results in damages paid

    Bagiante v Bunnings Group Limited. [2012] QSC, 31 May 2012. Employers should take care when arranging team events and participation in these activities should be on a voluntary basis.

  • Accident not caused by failures

    Wolters v The University of the Sunshine Coast [2012] QSC 298, 5 October 2012. This is another case where the legal term of causation has been examined. The court found the employer breached its duty at common law and in contract by failing to adequately manage the behaviour of the supervisor following the event with the previous worker. However, the court held that the breach did not cause the claimant's loss, as it could not find that any action by the employer would have prevented the supervisor's actions on the day.

  • Employer found not negligent in security

    Karanfilov v MSS Security & Ors [2013] QSC 304. Injured worker suffered post-traumatic stress disorder when he was working as a security guard.

  • Damages awarded for physical and psychological injury

    Harris v State of Queensland [2014] QDC 35 28 February 2014. Liability was admitted by the employer, but a psychiatric injury, which arose after the physical workplace injury, led to the trial to judge the amount of damages.

  • Employer not liable for worker failing to keep look out

    Pershouse v Sirius Observatories Australia [2013] QDC, 9 May 2013. The Court was satisfied that there was no duty upon the employer to protect the worker from a risk that would have been reasonably foreseen by the worker.

  • Judgement of breach of duty of care overturned on appeal

    Larkin v Suncorp Staff Pty Ltd [2013] QDC 028 Samios DCJ. A judgement ruling an employer breached its of duty of care was overturned on Appeal when it was noted that there was a low probability that an accident would occur and the resulting injuries would be minimal.

  • No reason to anticipate misconduct might be dangerous

    Pols v AME Products [2013] QDC 190 19 August 2013. There was no reason to anticipate misconduct might be dangerous to other employees.There was no reason to anticipate misconduct might be dangerous to other employees.

  • Not foreseeable for racial joking to cause psychiatric condition

    Guorgi v Pipemakers Australia [2013] QSC 198 9 August 2013. It wasn’t reasonably foreseeable that the worker would suffer a psychiatric condition as a result of racial jokes.

  • Return on investment: CB group

    Over five years the return on investment for the CB Group investment in an upgraded WHS system is $3.22 of benefit for every $1 of cost.